fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:31 pm
@kennethamy,
I tell you what! Go down to the planetarium and ask them whether they were aware that Copernicus chose a heliocentric model because he had a mystical belief in the Sun as powerful astrological entity. You could also ask them whether they knew that Galileo's argument was suppressed for "social reasons". Its mathematical elegance was beyond question, but of course poor Galileo was politically naive, and publicised his model after agreeing not to do so. After that you might ask them where their display of "curved space" was, or where their display was which explained that space was never "empty" or that "locality of objects" was a statistical rather than an absolute concept.

Have fun !
de Silentio
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 06:16 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I tell you what! Go down to the planetarium and ask them whether they were aware that Copernicus chose a heliocentric model because he had a mystical belief in the Sun as powerful astrological entity. You could also ask them whether they knew that Galileo's argument was suppressed for "social reasons". Its mathematical elegance was beyond question, but of course poor Galileo was politically naive, and publicised his model after agreeing not to do so. After that you might ask them where their display of "curved space" was, or where their display was which explained that space was never "empty" or that "locality of objects" was a statistical rather than an absolute concept.


Sorry for replying before the person that this was addressed to. But what do any of those things have to do with the veracity of the heliocentric argument, Gallileo's arguments, or any other argument for that matter?
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:05 pm
@de Silentio,
"Veracity" in science is about the agreed predictive power and elegance of a model, and the crosslinkage of that model to other established models. Such "veracity" also has a range of applicability and is open to later revision . The heliocentric model was adopted for its elegance at the astronomical level. It was not/and is not used in terrestrial activities. It is relatively trivial at macro cosmological levels.

The naive realist assumes the model is a representation of "a reality" seperate from " a standard observer". He does not take into account that that observer is also a construction whose physiological and psychological limitations are ignored for axiomatic convenience. In particular, he does not take into account that the agreement about "veracity" depends on such an axiom.

kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:36 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

"Veracity" in science is about the agreed predictive power and elegance of a model, and the crosslinkage of that model to other established models. Such "veracity" also has a range of applicability and is open to later revision . The heliocentric model was adopted for its elegance at the astronomical level. It was not/and is not used in terrestrial activities. It is relatively trivial at macro cosmological levels.

The naive realist assumes the model is a representation of "a reality" seperate from " a standard observer". He does not take into account that that observer is also a construction whose physiological and psychological limitations are ignored for axiomatic convenience. In particular, he does not take into account that the agreement about "veracity" depends on such an axiom.




Well, either the Earth goes around the Sun, or the Sun goes around the Earth. Which do you think it is? I mean, of course, from the point of view of an astronaut in his space ship looking at the Solar system.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:44 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
either the Earth goes around the Sun, or the Sun goes around the Earth.
Your physics book should tell you that neither is the case. Where do you suppose the centre of a two-body system is?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:50 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
either the Earth goes around the Sun, or the Sun goes around the Earth.
Your physics book should tell you that neither is the case. Where do you suppose the centre of a two-body system is?


Neither is the case? Which physics book is this? Can you quote a passage from any? What do you suppose an astronaut would see if he looked down at the solar system?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:54 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Well, either the Earth goes around the Sun, or the Sun goes around the Earth. Which do you think it is? I mean, of course, from the point of view of an astronaut in his space ship looking at the Solar system.


The "answer" is embedded in the phrase "from the point of view of". Trivially, it is obvious that "astronauts" would be wise to adopt a heliocentric view for solar system travel ( just as they would be wise to stick to Newtonian physics rather than adopting its successors instigated by Einstein), but who knows what sort of view of "space-time" hypothetical "starship travellers" might need to adopt if they utilise "anti-matter" or circumnavigate "dark matter".....and such "travellers" are already taking those mental journeys !
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Which physics book is this?
The one which you claim tells you
kennethamy wrote:
that lowering the temperature to zero centigrade under normal conditions causes water to freeze
.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 11:57 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Which physics book is this?
The one which you claim tells you
kennethamy wrote:
that lowering the temperature to zero centigrade under normal conditions causes water to freeze
.


Good to hear, since that is just the book I trust. And now I have a further reason to trust it.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:03 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Which physics book is this?
The one which you claim tells you
kennethamy wrote:
that lowering the temperature to zero centigrade under normal conditions causes water to freeze
.
Good to hear, since that is just the book I trust. And now I have a further reason to trust it.
Great, as you trust that book, I assume you'll amend your belief, because
ughaibu wrote:
Your physics book should tell you that neither is the case. Where do you suppose the centre of a two-body system is?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:07 am
@fresco,
NB. In traditional mechanics, all the objects in the solar system, including the Sun,"orbit" around a common centre of mass. It just so happens that this centre is calculated as lying quite close to the centre of the Sun. Binary star systems would be much more fun!
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:10 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
NB. In traditional mechanics, all the objects in the solar system, including the Sun,"orbit" around a common centre of mass. It just so happens that this centre is calculated as lying quite close to the centre of the Sun. Binary star systems would be much more fun!
With more than two bodies, how can there be a stable centre of mass?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:14 am
@ughaibu,
He doesn't understand that "lowering the temperature" and " freezing" are equivalent concepts in terms of kinetic theory. A fridge is a device for changing states of matter by heat exchange between bodies.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:19 am
@ughaibu,
Good point ! Mathematically its a nightmare so usually only two bodies are considered at a time to give an approximate result. Problems tend to arise when bodies pass close to Jupiter because of its significant mass. "Space is curved" might give more accurate predictions than traditional mechanics, but I have no expertise in that direction. And "chaos theory" has something to say on the matter from what I can remember.
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:23 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
He doesn't understand that "lowering the temperature" and " freezing" are equivalent concepts in terms of kinetic theory. A fridge is a device for changing states of matter by heat exchange between bodies.
Not to mention the problem of defining "normal conditions" without incurring circularity.
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:14 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

fresco wrote:
He doesn't understand that "lowering the temperature" and " freezing" are equivalent concepts in terms of kinetic theory. A fridge is a device for changing states of matter by heat exchange between bodies.
Not to mention the problem of defining "normal conditions" without incurring circularity.


Are you saying that there is no freezing point for water, or that I am mistaken about what the freezing point is? Or are you just arguing for argument's sake? After all, what the freezing point of water is, is not the issue. We are not engaged in physics here.(Although I think I can understand why you would like to turn it into one), It is only an example. Would you like to choose a different example? Be my guest.

By the way, I still am not sure. Do you, too, not think that the heliocentric theory of the heavens is true, and that from the view of a person on Earth, that the Earth does not orbit the Sun?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 11:46 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
By the way, I still am not sure. Do you, too, not think that the heliocentric theory of the heavens is true, and that from the view of a person on Earth, that the Earth does not orbit the Sun?


On the definition of "truth " as "what works in specific contexts" the answer is both "yes" and "no", but naive realists such as yourself do not agree with such a definition. You think truth is "absolute" but this has never been the case in science. Anybody who uses the words "sunrise", "sunset" or "the sun is at its highest" does not at that time/in that context take the slightest notice of the heliocentric model, and THAT'S the point you don't get, there's a context for every model and for every instance of the usage of "truth".
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 12:22 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
By the way, I still am not sure. Do you, too, not think that the heliocentric theory of the heavens is true, and that from the view of a person on Earth, that the Earth does not orbit the Sun?


On the definition of "truth " as "what works in specific contexts" the answer is both "yes" and "no", but naive realists such as yourself do not agree with such a definition. You think truth is "absolute" but this has never been the case in science. Anybody who uses the words "sunrise", "sunset" or "the sun is at its highest" does not at that time/in that context take the slightest notice of the heliocentric model, and THAT'S the point you don't get, there's a context for every model and for every instance of the usage of "truth".



Since I don't know what it means for truth to be absolute, it may be that I think it is, but if I do, I don't know it. Never mind what "work" since it might very well be that it works to believe that Esmeralda loves me, in the sense that it comforts me, but that nevertheless, it is false that Esmeralda loves me. So, even if it works, it need not be true. The trouble of course is that I don't know how to tell whether it is true that something works, unless I already know what it means to say that it is true that something works. How can it be of the least help for me to know that what works is true unless I know first how to determine whether it is true that what is supposed to work does work? That is, that it is true that what is supposed to work works? So I am content to me an absolutist and understand what it means to say that some statement is true, than to be a "non-absolutist", and have no idea what I am talking about.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 02:59 pm
@kennethamy,
Do yourself a favour. Either dump Esmerelda, or take it on the chin that "love-hate" relationships are the norm ! ("Selves" change as contexts change).
In the meantime stop playing games with "what works". To "know" is to "have confidence". The confidence astronauts have in the heliocentric model and its Newtonian mathematics is gained by their experience of unmanned and manned previous expeditions which utilised it. "Certainty" would be nice, but it is confined to pure mathematics, religion, and death.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » jgweed's Signature
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/06/2020 at 04:45:47